Re: Am I being 'watched'?!

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:10:36 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
..
>
>Bill Schowengerdt <> wrote in message
>news...
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 15:37:55 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
>> the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
>> .
>> >On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 06:58:59 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:28:26 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
>> >> the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
>> >> .
>> >>>On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:50:38 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
>> >>>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop
>the
>> >>>> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
>> >>>> .
>> >>>>> You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
>> >>>>>They're like horrible little robots
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Don't be such a jerk. Give them a fucking break. Do you think anyone
>> >>>> does outbound telemarketing because they want to? Good Lord.,.... Do
>you
>> >>>> think it is fun?
>> >>>
>> >>>Telemarketers are the scum of the earth and just a minute step above
>> >>>spammers.
>> >>
>> >> As long sa youmean the companies and not the people on the
>> >> phones, I agree except I think telemarketing in below spamming.
>> >
>> >The "people on the ohones are "the companies".
>>
>> Wrong. Not only are they not the companies, but also they are not in a
>> position to have any influence over the companies.
>>
>> >> But if you are reffering to the workers, you are a stupid jerk and I
>can
>> >> only hope some downfall drives you to doing it.
>> >
>> >There are other options for "the workers"
>>
>> Hundreds of thousands of call center workers would be grateful for your
>> wisdom. Please share it.
>>
>> >and you're obviously one of
>> >them (at least formerly),
>>
>> Close but no cigar. Not only have I never been one, but also I have never
>> worked for a company that does outbound.
>
>That makes your tirade even more illogical!

It is hardly illogical to have an awareness of the plights of people you
do not know. It is called empathy. Carl Menniger said, "Empathy is the
last quality to develop in a mature adult". Unfortunately, many "adults"
never develop that far.
>>
>> However, before my illness . . .
>
>I assume this was somewhere between the ears

Partially. In fact, I do feel relatively stupid since my last two IQ
tests have indicated my IQ has now fallen to slightly under 130.
>
>. . . . I worked in Quality Assurance for Verizon
>> Wireless in a call center of about 700 customer care workers.
>>
>> Almost half of those people were single mothers, many of whom's only
>> other choice to provide support for their children, was to be on welfare.
>>
>> This because Verizon pays a bit more that other non-skilled employers in
>> this area, and at their wages expensive child care makes working barely
>> practical. Also a factor is the fact that there are simply not enough
>> jobs available even at the lower pay.
>
>So what? There are low paid and put-upon workers in all kinds of jobs.

That is true. But what is your point?
>> >scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
>> >and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.
>>
>> Although your "arguments" thus far fail to be rational and lack support,
>> I ask you for another try. Please explain your position if you have one
>> that makes sense.
>>
>> BTW... I am on both my state's and federal government's no-call list and
>> that has cut the number of calls vastly. Most that I still get are those
>> allowed by the law from certain organizations such as the police.
>>
>> Those calls are made by cops who have well paying jobs and do not care if
>> they are intruding on people's lives. They are the scumbags.
>>
>Twit!

Advertisements

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:29:31 -0500, The Old Sourdough wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:24:59 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
> boggled at the following statement by Bill Schowengerdt in message
> news
>
> snip
>
>>
>> Close but no cigar. Not only have I never been one, but also I have
>> never worked for a company that does outbound.
>>
>> However, before my illness I worked in Quality Assurance for Verizon
>> Wireless in a call center of about 700 customer care workers.
>>
>> Almost half of those people were single mothers, many of whom's only
>> other choice to provide support for their children, was to be on
>> welfare.
>
> But they're not outbound telemarketers, are they? They take incoming calls,
> right? They're not the ones who call at dinnertime, right? If they are
> outbound telemarketers, then you've contradicted yourself by saying you've
> "never worked for a company that does outbound."

You might be right. I took "customer care workers" to be a euphemism for
those asshole Verizon marketers who do call at dinnertime and try to
slam their service. Scumbags.
>>
>> This because Verizon pays a bit more that other non-skilled employers in
>> this area, and at their wages expensive child care makes working barely
>> practical. Also a factor is the fact that there are simply not enough
>> jobs available even at the lower pay.
>>
>>>scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
>>>and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.
>>
>> Although your "arguments" thus far fail to be rational and lack support,
>> I ask you for another try. Please explain your position if you have one
>> that makes sense.
>>
>> BTW... I am on both my state's and federal government's no-call list and
>> that has cut the number of calls vastly. Most that I still get are those
>> allowed by the law from certain organizations such as the police.
>
> Why, I would have thought taht with your attitude, you'd welcome all the
> calls from window salesmen, magazine salesmen, and all the other scummy,
> scammy, "buy-buy-buy-such-a-dal-I-got-for-you" salespeople.
>>
>> Those calls are made by cops who have well paying jobs and do not care
>> if they are intruding on people's lives. They are the scumbags.
>
> Made by cops?. In my experience, they're almost 100% made by telemarketing
> firms. And, yes, they (the telemarketing firms) are scumbags.

Advertisements

"nemo" <> wrote in message
newsiQ%a.216078$B%...
>
> Bill Schowengerdt <> wrote in message
> news:...
> > On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
> > bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
> > .
> > > You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
> > >They're like horrible little robots
>
> Yeah!
>
> You are arguing for the sake of arguing. That makes you a troll! - or the
> director of one of the telemarketing firms, which makes you an even lower
> form of life!!
>
> You're saying that business can do no wrong and that individuals don't
have
> the right to even complain, never mind defend themselves and you're using
> the well-worn false impression of poor little exploited workers only
trying
> to make a crust to defend unpopular and corrupt business practices which
> cause huge offence and nuisance and should have been made totally illegal
> years ago.
>
> It's just the same as when someone protests about other unpopular
practices
> such as vivisection or hunting for instance.
>
> Someone - usually a nasty little right-wing slag like Polly Toynbee - will
> pop up and say: what about all the poor little workers who will lose their
> jobs of these practices cease - when what their really trying to protect
is
> the fortune that the companies carrying out animal testing work make while
> at the same time paying those same "poor little workers" a bloody
> pittance! - or in the case of hunting are defending the corrupt, sick,
> perverted and immoral thrill that their upper-class-twit friends get out
of
> chasing small animals to exhaustion and then seeing them torn to bits.
>
> And these self-same pundits do not so much as bat an eyelid when thousands
> of workers are made redundant when companies have to downsize or close
> because of bad or corrupt management!
>
> You're slagging off the victim and defending the villain - a practice
which
> is far too common these days and is an absolute blight upon society, and
you
> are showing that you can't stand anyone who deals with a problem in an
> effective, ingenious and forthright way because you are terrified that
this
> sort of thing might catch on.
>
> > In short... I am so weary of listening to shit-heads say things like
> > "They're like horrible little robots", when you don't have a clue as to
> > what is forcing those poor people into doing that very difficult and
> > demeaning job.
>
> So you're weary? Tough. What is so special about you that we should all
> worry that you are weary? Aren't the victims of telemarketing entitled to
be
> weary and sick to the back teeth of having their privacy invaded by total
> and utter morons working for the worst kind of corrupt, money-grubbing
> companies - and fight back?
>
> After reading your utterly stupid tirade I'm damned sure that you are not,
> in fact, one of the downtrodden telemarketing operators - you're most
likely
> either a looney or the boss of one of these disgusting companies (is there
a
> difference?) trying to protect your investment - an investment supported
by
> annoying and irritating the arses off and grossly invading the privacy of
> ordinary people. Why don't you get a decent job?
>
> This makes you not only a troll, but also a spammer, albeit via the
> telephone!
>
> And where, O where do arrogant bastards like you and your ilk get the idea
> that you can sell things to people by annoying them anyway???
>
> The last salesman I encountered obviously thought like this . He was
selling
> banking services in Sainsbury's and after I told him I was happy with my
> present bank and would definitely not be changing he just carried on with
> his sales spiel and wouldn't get out of my way.
>
> He was horizontal a few seconds later, and *he* was a horrible BIG robot!
I
> hope this makes my attitude to high-pressure selling of all kinds crystal
> clear!
>
> This, sunshine, is what is known as having bitten off far more than you
can
> chew!
>
> Nemo

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:29:31 -0500, While I was using pressure to stop
the bleeding, The Old Sourdough <> posted:
..
>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:24:59 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
>boggled at the following statement by Bill Schowengerdt in message
>news
>
>snip
>
>>
>> Close but no cigar. Not only have I never been one, but also I have
>> never worked for a company that does outbound.
>>
>> However, before my illness I worked in Quality Assurance for Verizon
>> Wireless in a call center of about 700 customer care workers.
>>
>> Almost half of those people were single mothers, many of whom's only
>> other choice to provide support for their children, was to be on
>> welfare.
>
>But they're not outbound telemarketers, are they? They take incoming calls,
>right? They're not the ones who call at dinnertime, right? If they are
>outbound telemarketers, then you've contradicted yourself by saying you've
>"never worked for a company that does outbound."

Inbound only. To the best of my knowledge, I have never worked for any
company that does outbound, nor for any company that contracts for
someone else to do outbound.
>> This because Verizon pays a bit more that other non-skilled employers in
>> this area, and at their wages expensive child care makes working barely
>> practical. Also a factor is the fact that there are simply not enough
>> jobs available even at the lower pay.
>>
>>>scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
>>>and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.
>>
>> Although your "arguments" thus far fail to be rational and lack support,
>> I ask you for another try. Please explain your position if you have one
>> that makes sense.
>>
>> BTW... I am on both my state's and federal government's no-call list and
>> that has cut the number of calls vastly. Most that I still get are those
>> allowed by the law from certain organizations such as the police.
>
>Why, I would have thought taht with your attitude, you'd welcome all the
>calls from window salesmen, magazine salesmen, and all the other scummy,
>scammy, "buy-buy-buy-such-a-dal-I-got-for-you" salespeople.

Being on the no-call lists, I do not often get sales calls. And I
certainly do not welcome them. However, when I do, I am friendly to the
worker and tell them that I hope that whatever circumstance is forcing
them to do it will soon improve and they will be able to find more
pleasant work.
>> Those calls are made by cops who have well paying jobs and do not care
>> if they are intruding on people's lives. They are the scumbags.
>
>Made by cops?. In my experience, they're almost 100% made by telemarketing
>firms. And, yes, they (the telemarketing firms) are scumbags.

Around here, they are made by off duty cops and fire fighters.

BTW.... Just to put a finer point on my position..... I think the
telemarketer firms are just businesses responding to a demand for their
services. It is the companies that contract with them that I think are
scumbags.

Also BTW... Since I changed my name, are my posts showing up on servers
that they were not before?

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:49:19 -0000, While I was using pressure to stop
the bleeding, Jimchip <> posted:
..
>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:29:31 -0500, The Old Sourdough wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:24:59 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
>> boggled at the following statement by Bill Schowengerdt in message
>> news
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>
>>> Close but no cigar. Not only have I never been one, but also I have
>>> never worked for a company that does outbound.
>>>
>>> However, before my illness I worked in Quality Assurance for Verizon
>>> Wireless in a call center of about 700 customer care workers.
>>>
>>> Almost half of those people were single mothers, many of whom's only
>>> other choice to provide support for their children, was to be on
>>> welfare.
>>
>> But they're not outbound telemarketers, are they? They take incoming calls,
>> right? They're not the ones who call at dinnertime, right? If they are
>> outbound telemarketers, then you've contradicted yourself by saying you've
>> "never worked for a company that does outbound."
>
>You might be right. I took "customer care workers" to be a euphemism for
>those asshole Verizon marketers who do call at dinnertime and try to
>slam their service. Scumbags.

I have no idea how Verizon markets themselves. Verizon Wireless is an
entirely different company. Customer care workers are the ones you call
when you have errors on your bill, or have fucked up your phone and need
help making it work, or have had your phone stolen, etc. The point being
that customers call THEM, not the otherr way around.

Have you ever recieved an outbound sales call from Verizon Wireless?
>>> This because Verizon pays a bit more that other non-skilled employers in
>>> this area, and at their wages expensive child care makes working barely
>>> practical. Also a factor is the fact that there are simply not enough
>>> jobs available even at the lower pay.
>>>
>>>>scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
>>>>and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.
>>>
>>> Although your "arguments" thus far fail to be rational and lack support,
>>> I ask you for another try. Please explain your position if you have one
>>> that makes sense.
>>>
>>> BTW... I am on both my state's and federal government's no-call list and
>>> that has cut the number of calls vastly. Most that I still get are those
>>> allowed by the law from certain organizations such as the police.
>>
>> Why, I would have thought taht with your attitude, you'd welcome all the
>> calls from window salesmen, magazine salesmen, and all the other scummy,
>> scammy, "buy-buy-buy-such-a-dal-I-got-for-you" salespeople.
>>>
>>> Those calls are made by cops who have well paying jobs and do not care
>>> if they are intruding on people's lives. They are the scumbags.
>>
>> Made by cops?. In my experience, they're almost 100% made by telemarketing
>> firms. And, yes, they (the telemarketing firms) are scumbags.
>
>Have a beer (it's on °Mike°).

Plinque Schowengerdt wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:29:31 -0500, While I was using pressure to stop
> the bleeding, The Old Sourdough <> posted:
> .
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:24:59 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
>> boggled at the following statement by Bill Schowengerdt in message
>> news
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>
>>> Close but no cigar. Not only have I never been one, but also I have
>>> never worked for a company that does outbound.
>>>
>>> However, before my illness I worked in Quality Assurance for Verizon
>>> Wireless in a call center of about 700 customer care workers.
>>>
>>> Almost half of those people were single mothers, many of whom's only
>>> other choice to provide support for their children, was to be on
>>> welfare.
>>
>> But they're not outbound telemarketers, are they? They take incoming
>> calls, right? They're not the ones who call at dinnertime, right? If
>> they are outbound telemarketers, then you've contradicted yourself
>> by saying you've "never worked for a company that does outbound."
>
> Inbound only. To the best of my knowledge, I have never worked for any
> company that does outbound, nor for any company that contracts for
> someone else to do outbound.
>
>>> This because Verizon pays a bit more that other non-skilled
>>> employers in this area, and at their wages expensive child care
>>> makes working barely practical. Also a factor is the fact that
>>> there are simply not enough jobs available even at the lower pay.
>>>
>>>> scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
>>>> and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.
>>>
>>> Although your "arguments" thus far fail to be rational and lack
>>> support, I ask you for another try. Please explain your position if
>>> you have one that makes sense.
>>>
>>> BTW... I am on both my state's and federal government's no-call
>>> list and that has cut the number of calls vastly. Most that I still
>>> get are those allowed by the law from certain organizations such as
>>> the police.
>>
>> Why, I would have thought taht with your attitude, you'd welcome all
>> the calls from window salesmen, magazine salesmen, and all the other
>> scummy, scammy, "buy-buy-buy-such-a-dal-I-got-for-you" salespeople.
>
> Being on the no-call lists, I do not often get sales calls. And I
> certainly do not welcome them. However, when I do, I am friendly to
> the worker and tell them that I hope that whatever circumstance is
> forcing them to do it will soon improve and they will be able to find
> more pleasant work.
>
>>> Those calls are made by cops who have well paying jobs and do not
>>> care if they are intruding on people's lives. They are the scumbags.
>>
>> Made by cops?. In my experience, they're almost 100% made by
>> telemarketing firms. And, yes, they (the telemarketing firms) are
>> scumbags.
>
> Around here, they are made by off duty cops and fire fighters.
>
> BTW.... Just to put a finer point on my position..... I think the
> telemarketer firms are just businesses responding to a demand for
> their services. It is the companies that contract with them that I
> think are scumbags.
>
> Also BTW... Since I changed my name, are my posts showing up on
> servers that they were not before?

"Toll"? Expressing a position and then defending it is not my
understanding of trolling. It was certainly not my intention to be
trolling.

Also, If you paid attention to my previous posts, you would have read
that my name changes were 1.) the temporary result of posting through a
little used instance of Agent, and 2.) a temporary and obvious partial
name change intended as part of a troubleshooting effort.

Morphing... My ass. Why don't you people try logically supporting your
positions instead of just name calling and killfileing?

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:02:07 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
..
>
>Bill Schowengerdt <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
>> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
>> .
>> > You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
>> >They're like horrible little robots
>
>Yeah!
>
>You are arguing for the sake of arguing.

Nope.... I have just been defending my position. I have asked for support
for statements others have made, but received none. To not support
inflammatory statements is trolling
>That makes you a troll! - or the
>director of one of the telemarketing firms, which makes you an even lower
>form of life!!
>
>You're saying that business can do no wrong and that individuals don't have
>the right to even complain,

I said nothing of the kind.
>never mind defend themselves

Going directly against what was expected of me (as part of management), I
fully supported unionization as an effort to empower the workers.
> and you're using
>the well-worn false impression of poor little exploited workers only trying
>to make a crust

They ARE simply trying to make a living.
>to defend unpopular and corrupt business practices

Wrong. Re-read what I have said. The point I have been trying to make is
that the workers do not set, and are not responsible for the business
practices of telemarketers or the companies they sell for.
>which cause huge offence and nuisance and should have been made totally illegal
>years ago.

Agreed
>It's just the same as when someone protests about other unpopular practices
>such as vivisection or hunting for instance.

Where did this come from? "Hunting"? I hunt. What does that have to do
with the practice of killing the messenger?
>Someone - usually a nasty little right-wing slag like Polly Toynbee - will
>pop up and say: what about all the poor little workers who will lose their
>jobs of these practices cease

Right wingers defending the workers? Must be a UK thing.
> when what their really trying to protect is
>the fortune that the companies carrying out animal testing work make while
>at the same time paying those same "poor little workers" a bloody
>pittance! - or in the case of hunting are defending the corrupt, sick,
>perverted and immoral thrill that their upper-class-twit friends get out of
>chasing small animals to exhaustion and then seeing them torn to bits.

I assume you are talking about fox hunting. I think fox hunting (real
foxes) is a strange and disgusting "sport". BTW, in the USA most
hunters are common folk, often hunting for animals they eat. Especially
here in on the plains.
>And these self-same pundits do not so much as bat an eyelid when thousands
>of workers are made redundant when companies have to downsize or close
>because of bad or corrupt management!

Agreed
>You're slagging off the victim and defending the villain - a practice which
>is far too common these days and is an absolute blight upon society, and you
>are showing that you can't stand anyone who deals with a problem in an
>effective, ingenious and forthright way because you are terrified that this
>sort of thing might catch on.

I am doing nothing of the kind. But if you think harming the hearing of a
call center worker is "an effective, ingenious and forthright way" of
dealing with the problem then I have every right to express the opinion
that your methods will not only be non-productive, but might even be
harmful to the workers while leaving upper management and the owners
un-scathed.
>> In short... I am so weary of listening to shit-heads say things like
>> "They're like horrible little robots", when you don't have a clue as to
>> what is forcing those poor people into doing that very difficult and
>> demeaning job.
>
>So you're weary? Tough. What is so special about you that we should all
>worry that you are weary? Aren't the victims of telemarketing entitled to be
>weary and sick to the back teeth of having their privacy invaded by total
>and utter morons working for the worst kind of corrupt, money-grubbing
>companies - and fight back?

By all means fight back. But I suggest you fight back against those who
are actually responsible for the offence. Sure... That might take a
little more thought, work, and not be as cute, but it would stand a much
better chance of actually making a difference.
>And where, O where do arrogant bastards like you and your ilk get the idea
>that you can sell things to people by annoying them anyway???

Have you paid ANY attention to what I have said? Does this quote from a
previous post look familiar?

==========================
"When you speak to their sup, ASK them to pass along the message that you
would never buy anything from a company that telemarkets. Never. No
product, at any price.

In fact, if Mercedies-Benz cold-called you and offered you a new car for
$10.00, not only would you not buy it, but that you will never, ever,
even consider buying a car from Mercedies-Benz."
=====================

Does that sound like I support telemarketing? And you have not even
mentioned the part I find the most objectionable. That is the fact that
they are using the lines and equipment that I HAVE PAID FOR. And... God
save us from the new trend of telemarketing via cell phones!!!

In summary, I dislike telemarketing very much and I am amazed that it is
obviously profitable. But I don't take out my frustration on the workers,
I take the time to write letters supporting legislation against it
altogether.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:06:55 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
..
>
>Auric__ <> wrote in message
>news:...
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 04:28:26 -0000, Jimchip
>> <> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 22:50:38 -0500, Bill Schowengerdt wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop
>the
>> >> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
>> >> .
>> >>> You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
>> >>>They're like horrible little robots
>> >>
>> >> Don't be such a jerk. Give them a fucking break. Do you think anyone
>> >> does outbound telemarketing because they want to? Good Lord.,.... Do
>you
>> >> think it is fun?
>> >
>> >Telemarketers are the scum of the earth and just a minute step above
>> >spammers. The U.S. National Do Not Call list will be a great help in
>> >putting them in their place.
>>
>> Yes, but do you seriously expect a telemarketing giant to stop calling
>> just because you're on a list? They'll just find new ways to make
>> unidentifiable, untraceable calls.
>> --
>> auric "underscore" "underscore" "at" hotmail "dot" com
>
>
>Another case of someone trying to condition a victim into not standing up
>for himself. Who needs Big Brother these days?

Putting myself on our State of Kansas No-call list had cause a big
reduction in calls.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 22:51:53 +0100, While I was using pressure to stop
the bleeding, "Patrick" <> posted:
..
>Plinque Schowengerdt wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 14:29:31 -0500, While I was using pressure to stop
>> the bleeding, The Old Sourdough <> posted:
>> .
>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 16:24:59 GMT in 24hoursupport.helpdesk, my mind
>>> boggled at the following statement by Bill Schowengerdt in message
>>> news
>>>
>>> snip
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Close but no cigar. Not only have I never been one, but also I have
>>>> never worked for a company that does outbound.
>>>>
>>>> However, before my illness I worked in Quality Assurance for Verizon
>>>> Wireless in a call center of about 700 customer care workers.
>>>>
>>>> Almost half of those people were single mothers, many of whom's only
>>>> other choice to provide support for their children, was to be on
>>>> welfare.
>>>
>>> But they're not outbound telemarketers, are they? They take incoming
>>> calls, right? They're not the ones who call at dinnertime, right? If
>>> they are outbound telemarketers, then you've contradicted yourself
>>> by saying you've "never worked for a company that does outbound."
>>
>> Inbound only. To the best of my knowledge, I have never worked for any
>> company that does outbound, nor for any company that contracts for
>> someone else to do outbound.
>>
>>>> This because Verizon pays a bit more that other non-skilled
>>>> employers in this area, and at their wages expensive child care
>>>> makes working barely practical. Also a factor is the fact that
>>>> there are simply not enough jobs available even at the lower pay.
>>>>
>>>>> scumbag. "drives you to doing it" is a cop out
>>>>> and typical of the thinking that justifies the worst abuses.
>>>>
>>>> Although your "arguments" thus far fail to be rational and lack
>>>> support, I ask you for another try. Please explain your position if
>>>> you have one that makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> BTW... I am on both my state's and federal government's no-call
>>>> list and that has cut the number of calls vastly. Most that I still
>>>> get are those allowed by the law from certain organizations such as
>>>> the police.
>>>
>>> Why, I would have thought taht with your attitude, you'd welcome all
>>> the calls from window salesmen, magazine salesmen, and all the other
>>> scummy, scammy, "buy-buy-buy-such-a-dal-I-got-for-you" salespeople.
>>
>> Being on the no-call lists, I do not often get sales calls. And I
>> certainly do not welcome them. However, when I do, I am friendly to
>> the worker and tell them that I hope that whatever circumstance is
>> forcing them to do it will soon improve and they will be able to find
>> more pleasant work.
>>
>>>> Those calls are made by cops who have well paying jobs and do not
>>>> care if they are intruding on people's lives. They are the scumbags.
>>>
>>> Made by cops?. In my experience, they're almost 100% made by
>>> telemarketing firms. And, yes, they (the telemarketing firms) are
>>> scumbags.
>>
>> Around here, they are made by off duty cops and fire fighters.
>>
>> BTW.... Just to put a finer point on my position..... I think the
>> telemarketer firms are just businesses responding to a demand for
>> their services. It is the companies that contract with them that I
>> think are scumbags.
>>
>> Also BTW... Since I changed my name, are my posts showing up on
>> servers that they were not before?
>
>Your not showing up here mate.
>D'oh

I maintaing that my position in this matter is the correct one. Arguing for
the sake of arguing is something I do not have time for, therefore anything
more from you will be in vain.

Nemo

bill Schowengerdt <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Toll"? Expressing a position and then defending it is not my
> understanding of trolling. It was certainly not my intention to be
> trolling.
>
> Also, If you paid attention to my previous posts, you would have read
> that my name changes were 1.) the temporary result of posting through a
> little used instance of Agent, and 2.) a temporary and obvious partial
> name change intended as part of a troubleshooting effort.
>
> Morphing... My ass. Why don't you people try logically supporting your
> positions instead of just name calling and killfileing?
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:02:07 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
> .
> >
> >Bill Schowengerdt <> wrote in message
> >news:...
> >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop
the
> >> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
> >> .
> >> > You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
> >> >They're like horrible little robots
> >
> >Yeah!
> >
> >You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
>
> Nope.... I have just been defending my position. I have asked for support
> for statements others have made, but received none. To not support
> inflammatory statements is trolling
>
> >That makes you a troll! - or the
> >director of one of the telemarketing firms, which makes you an even lower
> >form of life!!
> >
> >You're saying that business can do no wrong and that individuals don't
have
> >the right to even complain,
>
> I said nothing of the kind.
>
> >never mind defend themselves
>
> Going directly against what was expected of me (as part of management), I
> fully supported unionization as an effort to empower the workers.
>
> > and you're using
> >the well-worn false impression of poor little exploited workers only
trying
> >to make a crust
>
> They ARE simply trying to make a living.
>
> >to defend unpopular and corrupt business practices
>
> Wrong. Re-read what I have said. The point I have been trying to make is
> that the workers do not set, and are not responsible for the business
> practices of telemarketers or the companies they sell for.
>
> >which cause huge offence and nuisance and should have been made totally
illegal
> >years ago.
>
> Agreed
>
> >It's just the same as when someone protests about other unpopular
practices
> >such as vivisection or hunting for instance.
>
> Where did this come from? "Hunting"? I hunt. What does that have to do
> with the practice of killing the messenger?
>
> >Someone - usually a nasty little right-wing slag like Polly Toynbee -
will
> >pop up and say: what about all the poor little workers who will lose
their
> >jobs of these practices cease
>
> Right wingers defending the workers? Must be a UK thing.
>
> > when what their really trying to protect is
> >the fortune that the companies carrying out animal testing work make
while
> >at the same time paying those same "poor little workers" a bloody
> >pittance! - or in the case of hunting are defending the corrupt, sick,
> >perverted and immoral thrill that their upper-class-twit friends get out
of
> >chasing small animals to exhaustion and then seeing them torn to bits.
>
> I assume you are talking about fox hunting. I think fox hunting (real
> foxes) is a strange and disgusting "sport". BTW, in the USA most
> hunters are common folk, often hunting for animals they eat. Especially
> here in on the plains.
>
> >And these self-same pundits do not so much as bat an eyelid when
thousands
> >of workers are made redundant when companies have to downsize or close
> >because of bad or corrupt management!
>
> Agreed
>
> >You're slagging off the victim and defending the villain - a practice
which
> >is far too common these days and is an absolute blight upon society, and
you
> >are showing that you can't stand anyone who deals with a problem in an
> >effective, ingenious and forthright way because you are terrified that
this
> >sort of thing might catch on.
>
> I am doing nothing of the kind. But if you think harming the hearing of a
> call center worker is "an effective, ingenious and forthright way" of
> dealing with the problem then I have every right to express the opinion
> that your methods will not only be non-productive, but might even be
> harmful to the workers while leaving upper management and the owners
> un-scathed.
>
> >> In short... I am so weary of listening to shit-heads say things like
> >> "They're like horrible little robots", when you don't have a clue as to
> >> what is forcing those poor people into doing that very difficult and
> >> demeaning job.
> >
> >So you're weary? Tough. What is so special about you that we should all
> >worry that you are weary? Aren't the victims of telemarketing entitled to
be
> >weary and sick to the back teeth of having their privacy invaded by total
> >and utter morons working for the worst kind of corrupt, money-grubbing
> >companies - and fight back?
>
> By all means fight back. But I suggest you fight back against those who
> are actually responsible for the offence. Sure... That might take a
> little more thought, work, and not be as cute, but it would stand a much
> better chance of actually making a difference.
>
> >And where, O where do arrogant bastards like you and your ilk get the
idea
> >that you can sell things to people by annoying them anyway???
>
> Have you paid ANY attention to what I have said? Does this quote from a
> previous post look familiar?
>
> ==========================
> "When you speak to their sup, ASK them to pass along the message that you
> would never buy anything from a company that telemarkets. Never. No
> product, at any price.
>
> In fact, if Mercedies-Benz cold-called you and offered you a new car for
> $10.00, not only would you not buy it, but that you will never, ever,
> even consider buying a car from Mercedies-Benz."
> =====================
>
> Does that sound like I support telemarketing? And you have not even
> mentioned the part I find the most objectionable. That is the fact that
> they are using the lines and equipment that I HAVE PAID FOR. And... God
> save us from the new trend of telemarketing via cell phones!!!
>
>
> In summary, I dislike telemarketing very much and I am amazed that it is
> obviously profitable. But I don't take out my frustration on the workers,
> I take the time to write letters supporting legislation against it
> altogether.

On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 23:58:36 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
..
>I maintaing that my position in this matter is the correct one. Arguing for
>the sake of arguing is something I do not have time for, therefore anything
>more from you will be in vain.
>
>Nemo

That's reasonable. Thanks for the discussion.

Bill

>
>bill Schowengerdt <> wrote in message
>news:...
>>
>> "Toll"? Expressing a position and then defending it is not my
>> understanding of trolling. It was certainly not my intention to be
>> trolling.
>>
>> Also, If you paid attention to my previous posts, you would have read
>> that my name changes were 1.) the temporary result of posting through a
>> little used instance of Agent, and 2.) a temporary and obvious partial
>> name change intended as part of a troubleshooting effort.
>>
>> Morphing... My ass. Why don't you people try logically supporting your
>> positions instead of just name calling and killfileing?
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 19:02:07 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop the
>> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
>> .
>> >
>> >Bill Schowengerdt <> wrote in message
>> >news:...
>> >> On Sat, 16 Aug 2003 21:13:14 GMT, While I was using pressure to stop
>the
>> >> bleeding, "nemo" <> posted:
>> >> .
>> >> > You'll probably have to repeat this a number of times.
>> >> >They're like horrible little robots
>> >
>> >Yeah!
>> >
>> >You are arguing for the sake of arguing.
>>
>> Nope.... I have just been defending my position. I have asked for support
>> for statements others have made, but received none. To not support
>> inflammatory statements is trolling
>>
>> >That makes you a troll! - or the
>> >director of one of the telemarketing firms, which makes you an even lower
>> >form of life!!
>> >
>> >You're saying that business can do no wrong and that individuals don't
>have
>> >the right to even complain,
>>
>> I said nothing of the kind.
>>
>> >never mind defend themselves
>>
>> Going directly against what was expected of me (as part of management), I
>> fully supported unionization as an effort to empower the workers.
>>
>> > and you're using
>> >the well-worn false impression of poor little exploited workers only
>trying
>> >to make a crust
>>
>> They ARE simply trying to make a living.
>>
>> >to defend unpopular and corrupt business practices
>>
>> Wrong. Re-read what I have said. The point I have been trying to make is
>> that the workers do not set, and are not responsible for the business
>> practices of telemarketers or the companies they sell for.
>>
>> >which cause huge offence and nuisance and should have been made totally
>illegal
>> >years ago.
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>> >It's just the same as when someone protests about other unpopular
>practices
>> >such as vivisection or hunting for instance.
>>
>> Where did this come from? "Hunting"? I hunt. What does that have to do
>> with the practice of killing the messenger?
>>
>> >Someone - usually a nasty little right-wing slag like Polly Toynbee -
>will
>> >pop up and say: what about all the poor little workers who will lose
>their
>> >jobs of these practices cease
>>
>> Right wingers defending the workers? Must be a UK thing.
>>
>> > when what their really trying to protect is
>> >the fortune that the companies carrying out animal testing work make
>while
>> >at the same time paying those same "poor little workers" a bloody
>> >pittance! - or in the case of hunting are defending the corrupt, sick,
>> >perverted and immoral thrill that their upper-class-twit friends get out
>of
>> >chasing small animals to exhaustion and then seeing them torn to bits.
>>
>> I assume you are talking about fox hunting. I think fox hunting (real
>> foxes) is a strange and disgusting "sport". BTW, in the USA most
>> hunters are common folk, often hunting for animals they eat. Especially
>> here in on the plains.
>>
>> >And these self-same pundits do not so much as bat an eyelid when
>thousands
>> >of workers are made redundant when companies have to downsize or close
>> >because of bad or corrupt management!
>>
>> Agreed
>>
>> >You're slagging off the victim and defending the villain - a practice
>which
>> >is far too common these days and is an absolute blight upon society, and
>you
>> >are showing that you can't stand anyone who deals with a problem in an
>> >effective, ingenious and forthright way because you are terrified that
>this
>> >sort of thing might catch on.
>>
>> I am doing nothing of the kind. But if you think harming the hearing of a
>> call center worker is "an effective, ingenious and forthright way" of
>> dealing with the problem then I have every right to express the opinion
>> that your methods will not only be non-productive, but might even be
>> harmful to the workers while leaving upper management and the owners
>> un-scathed.
>>
>> >> In short... I am so weary of listening to shit-heads say things like
>> >> "They're like horrible little robots", when you don't have a clue as to
>> >> what is forcing those poor people into doing that very difficult and
>> >> demeaning job.
>> >
>> >So you're weary? Tough. What is so special about you that we should all
>> >worry that you are weary? Aren't the victims of telemarketing entitled to
>be
>> >weary and sick to the back teeth of having their privacy invaded by total
>> >and utter morons working for the worst kind of corrupt, money-grubbing
>> >companies - and fight back?
>>
>> By all means fight back. But I suggest you fight back against those who
>> are actually responsible for the offence. Sure... That might take a
>> little more thought, work, and not be as cute, but it would stand a much
>> better chance of actually making a difference.
>>
>> >And where, O where do arrogant bastards like you and your ilk get the
>idea
>> >that you can sell things to people by annoying them anyway???
>>
>> Have you paid ANY attention to what I have said? Does this quote from a
>> previous post look familiar?
>>
>> ==========================
>> "When you speak to their sup, ASK them to pass along the message that you
>> would never buy anything from a company that telemarkets. Never. No
>> product, at any price.
>>
>> In fact, if Mercedies-Benz cold-called you and offered you a new car for
>> $10.00, not only would you not buy it, but that you will never, ever,
>> even consider buying a car from Mercedies-Benz."
>> =====================
>>
>> Does that sound like I support telemarketing? And you have not even
>> mentioned the part I find the most objectionable. That is the fact that
>> they are using the lines and equipment that I HAVE PAID FOR. And... God
>> save us from the new trend of telemarketing via cell phones!!!
>>
>>
>> In summary, I dislike telemarketing very much and I am amazed that it is
>> obviously profitable. But I don't take out my frustration on the workers,
>> I take the time to write letters supporting legislation against it
>> altogether.
>

When the OP asked if he was being watched, how come he hasn't noticed the
"telephone engineers" in that manhole down the street. Or, the street light that
the "council workers" repaired across the way. Is it a light, or has it now got
a tv camera in it? And what about that "delivery" van that comes down the road,
every other day..or the "window cleaners" on that block of apartments...or...

On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 00:12:15 +0100, in
<>
William Poaster scrawled:
>This is the Flibbydabby Dee service of the BBC, & on Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:45:18
>+0100, °Mike° uttered this:
>
>>On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 18:29:45 -0400, in
>> <3f4152de$0$43891$>
>> Thund3rstruck scrawled:
>>
>>>°Mike° Spilled my beer when they jumped on the table and proclaimed
>>>in <3f571c31.5045828@localhost>:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:16:32 -0400, in
>>>> <3f402878$0$13097$>
>>>> Thund3rstruck scrawled:
>>>>
>>>>>°Mike° Spilled my beer when they jumped on the table and proclaimed
>>>>>in <3f75ebc7.40278055@localhost>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> No need to keep re-plonking morphs with NFilter installed.
>>>>>
>>>>> You using Linux like me, or some Windows item?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. <g>
>>>
>>> Then I'll hunt it down, and try it on the appropriate box. Thanks!
>>
>>I was being deliberately vague - failed attempt at humour - answering
>>both questions with "Yes". Nfilter is for Windows:
>>http://www.nfilter.org/
>
>When the OP asked if he was being watched, how come he hasn't noticed the
>"telephone engineers" in that manhole down the street. Or, the street light that
>the "council workers" repaired across the way. Is it a light, or has it now got
>a tv camera in it? And what about that "delivery" van that comes down the road,
>every other day..or the "window cleaners" on that block of apartments...or...

°Mike° Spilled my beer when they jumped on the table and proclaimed
in <>:
> I was being deliberately vague - failed attempt at humour -
> answering
> both questions with "Yes". Nfilter is for Windows:
> http://www.nfilter.org/

I know. <G>

Figured that I should google it and that came up. I'll play with it
some later...

William Poaster Spilled my beer when they jumped on the table and
proclaimed in <>:
> When the OP asked if he was being watched, how come he hasn't
> noticed the "telephone engineers" in that manhole down the street.
> Or, the street light that the "council workers" repaired across the
> way. Is it a light, or has it now got a tv camera in it? And what
> about that "delivery" van that comes down the road, every other
> day..or the "window cleaners" on that block of apartments...or...

William Poaster said:
> This is the Flibbydabby Dee service of the BBC, & on Mon, 18 Aug
> 2003 19:34:29 +0100, Â°MikeÂ° uttered this:
>
>>On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 21:16:32 -0400, in
>> <3f402878$0$13097$>
>> Thund3rstruck scrawled:
>>
>>>Â°MikeÂ° Spilled my beer when they jumped on the table and
>>>proclaimed in <3f75ebc7.40278055@localhost>:
>>>
>>>> No need to keep re-plonking morphs with NFilter installed.
>>>
>>> You using Linux like me, or some Windows item?
>>
>>Yes. <g>
>
> It's a good Windows program. You (TINY) can block the trolls,
> over which they (TINT) have no control.

Xnews ain't too shabby either.
> There are various ways of doing it in linux, too.
> They can morph all they like, but won't be seen.
> --
> "It better to ignore them."

Share This Page

Welcome to Velocity Reviews!

Welcome to the Velocity Reviews, the place to come for the latest tech news and reviews.

Please join our friendly community by clicking the button below - it only takes a few seconds and is totally free. You'll be able to chat with other enthusiasts and get tech help from other members.
Sign up now!